We examine how humanity can best reduce suffering

Our mission is to identify cooperative and effective strategies to reduce involuntary suffering. We believe that in a complex world where the long-run consequences of our actions are highly uncertain, such an undertaking requires foundational research. Currently, our research focuses on reducing risks of dystopian futures in the context of emerging technologies.

Some decision theorists argue that when playing a prisoner's dilemma-type game against a sufficiently similar opponent, we should cooperate to make it more likely that our opponent also cooperates. This idea, which Hofstadter calls superrationality, has strong implications when combined with the insight from modern physics that we live in a large universe or multiverse of some sort.

Discussions about the possible consequences of creating superintelligence have included the possibility of existential risk, usually understood as the risk of human extinction. We argue that suffering risks (s-risks) present comparable severity and probability. Just as with existential risks, s-risks can be caused as well as reduced by superintelligent AI.

AI outcomes where something goes wrong may differ enormously in the amounts of suffering they contain. An approach that tries to avert the worst of those outcomes seems especially promising because it is currently more neglected than classical AI safety efforts which shoot for a highly specific, “best-case” outcome.

When agents of differing values compete, they may often find it mutually advantageous to compromise rather than continuing to engage in zero-sum conflicts. Potential ways of encouraging cooperation include promoting democracy, tolerance and (moral) trade. Because a future without compromise could be many times worse than a future with it, advancing compromise seems an important undertaking.

FROM OUR BLOG

Surrogate goals might be one of the most promising approaches to reduce (the disvalue resulting from) threats. The idea is to add to one’s current goals a surrogate goal that one did not initially care about, hoping that any potential threats will target this surrogate goal rather than what one initially cared about.
In this post, I will outline two key obstacles to a successful implementation of surrogate goals.

To steer the development of powerful AI in beneficial directions, we need an accurate understanding of how the transition to a world with powerful AI systems will unfold. A key question is how long such a transition (or “takeoff”) will take.

Summary This post assumes deep familiarity with the ideas discussed in Caspar Oesterheld’s paper Multiverse-wide cooperation via coordinated decision-making. I wrote a short introduction to multiverse-wide cooperation in an earlier post (but I still recommend reading parts of Caspar’s original paper first, or at least this more advanced introduction, because some of the things that…

NEW RESEARCH

Discussions about the possible consequences of creating superintelligence have included the possibility of existential risk, usually understood as the risk of human extinction. We argue that suffering risks (s-risks) present comparable severity and probability. Just as with existential risks, s-risks can be caused as well as reduced by superintelligent AI.

Some decision theorists argue that when playing a prisoner's dilemma-type game against a sufficiently similar opponent, we should cooperate to make it more likely that our opponent also cooperates. This idea, which Hofstadter calls superrationality, has strong implications when combined with the insight from modern physics that we live in a large universe or multiverse of some sort.